[fela]

Don't you need time to even define movement? Movement is a change of the position with respect to time. So without time you can't have movement. But obviously you are right that the two concepts are strictly related, that doesn't mean time doesn't "exist" (however you define "exist").

[hansen]

All our accepted model of nature assume that in some sense time exists. But in general relativity it doesn’t make much sense to speak of a single event. In the same way it doesn’t make much sense to speak of a single point in the euclidean plane (you can only localize one point relative to another one).

So some people (like Rovelli) think one should try to formulate relativity only in terms relations of events. This might be relevant in a more fundamental theory of spacetime but on a classical level it’s irrelevant. You can measure the geometry of spacetime in our solar system w/o disturbing it. The gravitational field of e.g. some satellite is negligible to the gravitational field of planets and the sun.

[idunnooo]

Forgive me for sounding rhetorical in this question, but I'm genuinely wondering.. Isn't saying "time doesn't exist" akin to saying "human thoughts don't exist"?

[mgamache]

Paradoxically, thought (human or not) is the only thing we might be certain exists.

https://www.the-philosophy.com/solipsism-definition